Below, I have assembled a series of references and abstracts that document
striking evidence for the common ancestry of humans and the great apes
independently of the usual paleontological, morphological, and molecular
phylogenetic data that we usually see. I first became aware of this through
some postings on the internet of Clark Dorman and Don
Lindsay.

When one looks at the chromosomes of humans and the living great apes
(orangutan, gorilla, and chimpanzee), it is immediately apparent that there
is a great deal of similarity between the number and overall appearance
of the chromosomes across the four different species. Yes, there are differences
(and I will be addressing these), but the overall similarity is striking.
The four species have a similar number of chromosomes, with the apes all
having 24 pairs, and humans having 23 pairs. References 1
and 2 each contain high resolution photomicrographs and
diagrams showing the similarity of the chromosomes between the four species
(ref. 1 only covers humans and chimpanzees, ref. 2
covers all 4 species). Furthermore, these diagrams show the similarity
of the chromosomes in that every one of 1,000 nonheterochromatic G-bands
has been accounted for in the four species. That means that each non-heterochromatic
band has been located in each species. (I hope to add a scan of the full
sets of chromosomes for all four species in the very near future. In the
meantime I'll have to make do with a couple of examples of the most rearranged
chromosomes that Don Lindsay has posted.)

Creationists will be quick to point out that despite the similarities,
there are differences in the chromosomal banding patterns and the number
of chromosomes. Furthermore, they will claim that the similarities
are due to a common designer rather than common ancestry. Let's address
the differences first, and then we will see if we can tease apart the conflicting
scenarios of common ancestry vs. a common designer.

The following observations can be made about similarities and differences
among the four species. Except for differences in non genetic heterochromatin,
chromosomes 6, 13, 19, 21, 22, and X have identical banding patterns in
all four species. Chromosomes 3, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, and Y look the
same in three of the four species (those three being gorilla, chimps, and
humans), and chromosomes 1, 2p, 2q, 5, 7 - 10, 12, and 16 are alike in
two species. Chromosomes 4 and 17 are different among all 4 species.

Most of the chromosomal differences among the four species involve inversions
- localities on the chromosome that have been inverted, or swapped end
for end. This is a relatively common occurrence among many species, and
has been documented in humans (Ref. 8 ). An inversion
usually does not reduce fertility, as in the case I have referenced. Don
Lindsay provides a diagram of the chromosome
5 inversion between chimpanzees and humans scanned from ref. 1.
Note how all of the bands between the two chromosomes will line up perfectly
if you flip the middle piece of either of the two chromosomes between the
p14.I and q14.I marks. The similarity of the marks will include a match
for position, number, and intensity (depth of staining). Similar
rearrangements to this can explain all of the approximately 1000 non-heterochromatic
bands observed among each of the four species for these three properties
(band position, number, and intensity).

Other types of rearrangements include a few translocations (parts swapped
among the chromosomes), and the presence or absence of nucleolar organizers.
All of these differences are described in ref. 2 and can
be observed to be occurring in modern populations.

The biggest single chromosomal rearrangement among the four species
is the unique number of chromosomes (23 pairs) found in humans as opposed
to the apes (24 pairs). Examining this difference will allow us to see
some of the differences expected between common ancestry as opposed to
a common designer and address the second creationist objection listed above.

There are two potential naturalistic explanations for the difference
in chromosome numbers - either a fusion of two separate chromosomes occurred
in the human line, or a fission of a chromosome occurred among the apes.
The evidence favors a fusion
event in the human line. One could imagine that the fusion is only an apparent
artifact of the work of a designer or the work of nature (due to common
ancestry). The common ancestry scenario presents two predictions. Since
the chromosomes were apparently joined end to end, and the ends of chromosomes
(called the telomere ) have a distinctive structure from the rest of the
chromosome, there may be evidence of this structure in the middle of human
chromosome 2 where the fusion apparently occurred. Also, since both of
the chromosomes that hypothetically were fused had a centromere (the distinctive
central part of the chromosome), we should see some evidence of two centromeres.

The first prediction (evidence of a telomere at the fusion point) is
shown to be true in reference 3 . Telomeres in humans
have been shown to consist of head to tail repeats of the bases 5'TTAGGG
running toward the end of the chromosome. Furthermore, there is a
characteristic pattern of the base pairs in what is called the pre-telomeric
region, the region just before the telomere. When the vicinity of chromosome
2 where the fusion is expected to occur (based on comparison to chimp chromosomes
2p and 2q) is examined, we see first sequences that are characteristic
of the pre-telomeric region, then a section of telomeric sequences, and
then another section of pre-telomeric sequences. Furthermore, in the telomeric
section, it is observed that there is a point where instead of being arranged
head to tail, the telomeric repeats suddenly reverse direction - becoming
(CCCTAA)3' instead of 5'(TTAGGG), and the second pre-telomeric section
is also the reverse of the first telomeric section. This pattern is precisely
as predicted by a telomere to telomere fusion of the chimpanzee (ancestor)
2p and 2q chromosomes, and in precisely the expected location. Note
that the CCCTAA sequence is the reversed complement of TTAGGG (C pairs
with G, and T pairs with A).

The second prediction - remnants of the 2p and 2q centromeres is documented
in reference 4. The normal centromere found on human chromosome
2 lines up with the 2p chimp chromosome, and the remnants of the 2q chromosome
is found at the expected location based upon the banding pattern.

Some may raise the objection that if the fusion was a naturalistic event,
how could the first human ancestor with the fusion have successfully reproduced?
We have all heard that the horse and the donkey produce an infertile mule
in crossing because of a different number of chromosomes in the two species.
Well, apparently there is more to the story than we are usually told, because
variations in chromosome number are known to occur in many different animal
species, and although they sometimes seem to lead to reduced fertility,
this is often not the case. Refs 5, 6,
and 7 document both the existence of such chromosomal
number differences and the fact that differences do not always result in
reduced fertility. I can provide many more similar references if
required. The last remaining species of wild horse, Przewalski's
(sha-val-skis) Wild Horse has 66 chromosomes while the domesticated
horse has 64 chromosomes. Despite this difference in chromosome number,
Przewalski's Wild Horse and the domesticated horse can be crossed and do
produce fertile offspring (see reference 9).

Now, the question has to be asked - if the similarities of the chromosomes
are due only to common design rather than common ancestry, why are the
remnants of a telomere and centromere (that should never have existed)
found at exactly the positions predicted by a naturalistic fusion of the
chimp ancestor chromosomes 2p and 2q?

Another chromosomal rearrangement has recently been discovered, this
one shared both by humans and chimpanzees, but not found in any of the
other monkeys or apes that were tested. This rearrangement was the movement
of about 100,000 DNA pairs from human chromosome 1 to the Y chromosome10.
See "The
Promise of Comparative Genomics in Mammals" Science, Oct. 1999 to learn
how similar chromosomal comparisons are being used to map the evolutionary
relationships of all living mammals.

Abstract:
We have identified two allelic genomic cosmids from human chromosome
2, c8.1 and c29B, each containing two inverted arrays of the vertebrate
telomeric repeat in a head-to-head arrangement, 5'(TTAGGG)n-(CCCTAA)m3'.
Sequences flanking this telomeric repeat are characteristic of present-day
human pretelomeres. BAL-31 nuclease experiments with yeast artificial chromosome
clones of human telomeres and fluorescence in situ hybridization reveal
that sequences flanking these inverted repeats hybridize both to band 2q13
and to different, but overlapping, subsets of human chromosome ends. We
conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of
an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral
ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

Abstract:
In situ hybridization, under low stringency conditions with two alphoid
DNA probes (pY alpha 1 and p82H) labeled with digoxigenin-dUTP, decorated
all the centromeres of the human karyotype. However, signals were also
detected on the long arm of chromosome 2 at approximately q21.3-q22.1.
Since it is supposed that human chromosome 2 originated by the telomeric
fusion of two ancestral primate chromosomes, these findings indicate that
not only the telomeric sequences, but also the ancestral centromere (or
at least its alphoid sequences), have been conserved.

Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PS, United
Kingdom. hauffe@novanet.it

Following the discovery of over 40 Robertsonian (Rb) races of Mus musculus
domesticus in Europe and North Africa, the house mouse has been studied
extensively as an ideal model to determine the chromosomal changes that
may cause or accompany speciation. Current models of chromosomal speciation
are based on the assumption that heterozygous individuals have a particularly
low fertility, although recent studies indicate otherwise. Despite their
importance, fertility estimates for the house mouse are incomplete because
traditional measurements, such as anaphase I nondisjunction and germ cell
death, are rarely estimated in conjunction with litter size. In an attempt
to bridge this gap, we have taken advantage of the house mouse hybrid zone
in Upper Valtellina (Lombardy, Italy) in which five Rb races interbreed.
We present data on the fertility of naturally occurring ("wild-caught")
hybrids and of offspring from laboratory crosses of wild-caught mice ("laboratory-reared"),
using various measurements. Wild-caught mice heterozygous for one fusion
were more infertile than predicted from past studies, possibly due to genic
hybridity; laboratory-reared heterozygotes carrying seven or eight trivalents
at meiosis I and heterozygotes carrying one pentavalent also had low fertilities.
These low fertilities are especially significant given the probable occurrence
of a reinforcement event in Upper Valtellina.

A new Robertsonian translocation has been found in cattle. A bull from
Marchigiana breed (central Italy) was found to be a heterozygous carrier
of a centric fusion translocation involving cattle chromosomes 13 and 19
according to RBA-banding and cattle standard nomenclatures. CBC-banding
revealed the dicentric nature of this new translocation, underlining the
recent origin of this fusion. In fact, both the bull's parents and relatives
had normal karyotypes. In vitro fertilization tests were also performed
in the bull carrying the new translocation, in two bulls with normal karyotypes
(control) and in four other bulls carrying four different translocations.

The significance of centric fusions (Robertsonian translocations) in
domestic animals, with special reference to sheep, is reviewed. The mating
is described of a further 856 ewes with either a normal chromosome number
2n = 54 or carrying one or more of the three different translocations (centric
fusions) t1, t2 and t3 in various heterozygous and homozygous arrangements.
Rams which were used in the matings were homozygous for one of the translocation
chromosomes (2n = 52), double heterozygotes (2n = 52), triple heterozygotes
(2n = 51) or were carriers of 4 translocation chromosomes (2n = 50) and
5 translocation chromosomes (2n = 49). A remarkably even distribution of
segregation products was recorded in the progeny of all combinations of
translocation ewes x translocation rams in those groups in which sufficient
animals were available for statistical analysis. Forty-eight chromosomally
different groups of animals were mated. Further, the overall fertility
of the translocation sheep, measured by conception rate to first service,
lambing percentage and number of ewes which did not breed a lamb, was not
significantly different from New Zealand national sheep breeding data.
In some groups the poorer reproductive performance could be explained by
the age structure of the flock and inbreeding depression, which probably
affected the performance of some animals. Sheep with progressively decreasing
chromosome numbers, due to centric fusion, 2n = 50, 2n = 49 and 2n = 48,
are reported. The 2n = 48 category represents a triple homozygous ewe and
a triple homozygous ram and is the first report of the viable evolution
of such domestic animals. Less than 1% of phenotypically abnormal lambs
were recorded in a total of 1995 progeny born over 10 years. It is now
considered that there is little or no evidence to suggest that centric
fusions in a variety of combinations affect the total productive fitness
of domestic sheep. It is suggested that future research should be more
actively directed to understanding their genetic significance.

PMID: 513026, UI: 80074806

8. Hum Genet 1997 Dec;101(2):175-80

Inv(10)(p11.2q21.2), a variant chromosome.

Collinson MN, Fisher AM, Walker J, Currie J, Williams L, Roberts P

Wessex Regional Genetics Laboratory, Salisbury District Hospital, UK.

We present 33 families in which a pericentric inversion of chromosome
10 is segregating. In addition, we summarise the data on 32 families in
which an apparently identical inv(10) has been reported in the literature.
Ascertainment was through prenatal diagnosis or with a normal phenotype
in 21/33 families. In the other 12 families, probands were ascertained
through a wide variety of referral reasons but in all but one case (a stillbirth),
studies of the family showed that the reason for referral was unrelated
to the chromosome abnormality. There has been, to our knowledge, no recorded
instance of a recombinant chromosome 10 arising from this inversion and
no excess of infertility or spontaneous abortion among carriers of either
sex. We propose that inv(10)(p11.2q21.2) can be regarded as a variant analogous
to the pericentric inversion of chromosome 2(p11q13). We conclude that
prenatal chromosome analysis is not justified for inv(10) carriers. In
addition, family investigation of carrier status is not warranted in view
of the unnecessary concern this may cause parents and other family members.

PMID: 9402964, UI: 98066668

9. J Reprod Fertil Suppl 1975 Oct;(23):356-70

Cytogenetic studies of three equine hybrids.

Chandley AC, Short RV, Allen WR.

A detailed investigation of testicular meiosis in a mule, a hinny and
a Przewalski horse/domestic horse hybrid were made. Abnormalities of pairing
were observed in the mule and hinny in most germ cells at the pachytene
stage of meiotic prophase, and spermatogenesis was almost totally arrested.
A few mature spermatozoa were recovered from the ejaculate and epididymal
flushings of the hinny. The Przewalski horse/domestic horse hybrid was
fertile and showed normal spermatogenesis. Chromosome banding studies
showed a close homology between the karyotypes of the Prezwalski horse
(Equus przewalskii, 2n = 66) and the domestic horse (E. caballus,
2n = 64), and it is evident that a single Robertsonian translocation
has occurred transforming four acrocentric chromosomes of E. przewalskii
into two metacentric chromosomes in E. caballus. The investigations showed
that a trivalent is formed at meiosis in the hybrid (2n = 65), segregation
from which gives two classes of genetically balanced spermatozoa. Both
of these are capable of producing normal offspring if they fertilize the
eggs of a domestic mare.

PMID: 1060807 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

10. Chromosome Res 2002;10(1):55-61

Direct evidence for the Homo-Pan clade.

Wimmer R, Kirsch S, Rappold GA, Schempp W.

Institute of Human Genetics and Anthropology, University of Freiburg,
Germany.

For a long time, the evolutionary relationship between human and African
apes, the 'trichotomy problem', has been debated with strong differences
in opinion and interpretation. Statistical analyses of different molecular
DNA data sets have been carried out and have primarily supported a Homo-Pan
clade. An alternative way to address this question is by the comparison
of evolutionarily relevant chromosomal breakpoints. Here, we made use of
a P1-derived artificial chromosome (PAC)/bacterial artificial chromosome
(BAC) contig spanning approximately 2.8 Mb on the long arm of the human
Y chromosome, to comparatively map individual PAC clones to chromosomes
from great apes, gibbons, and two species of Old World monkeys by fluorescence
in-situ hybridization. During our search for evolutionary breakpoints on
the Y chromosome, it transpired that a transposition of an approximately
100-kb DNA fragment from chromosome 1 onto the Y chromosome must have occurred
in a common ancestor of human, chimpanzee and bonobo. Only the Y chromosomes
of these three species contain the chromosome-1-derived fragment; it
could not be detected on the Y chromosomes of gorillas or the other primates
examined. Thus, this shared derived (synapomorphic) trait provides
clear evidence for a Homo-Pan clade independent of DNA sequence analysis.